bgdddymtty wrote:Just ran into this document in another forum. According to the MBE statistics on page 27 of the PDF (page 32 according to the document pagination), the highest scaled score on the 2011 administrations was 188. I gotta say that it seems a bit disingenuous to claim that the test is scaled to a maximum of 200 when, out of 70,000+ test-takers, not a single one gets to within ten points of that.

kaiser wrote:Man, I hate con law so much. By far my worst subject. Been doing some practice on Multistate Edge, and for things like evidence, torts, K's, I"m hitting average of 14 right out of 17 Q's, so not bad there. But for con law, I get my ass kicked. Funny thing is, almost all Q's wrong come from individual rights. Had a messed up breakdown of:

Well, at least I know what I have to improve on. Worst part is, I already went through CMR on the individual rights issues (EP, DP material). Still have to review 1st Amendment stuff, but I can't believe how bad I do in this area.

I have a similar problem with Nature of Judicial Review. On the quizzes I've done on Multistate Edge so far, I've gotten seven questions in this area and have gone 0-fer. If I'd just answered them at random, there's an 87% chance I'd have gotten at least one right.

kaiser wrote:Man, I hate con law so much. By far my worst subject. Been doing some practice on Multistate Edge, and for things like evidence, torts, K's, I"m hitting average of 14 right out of 17 Q's, so not bad there. But for con law, I get my ass kicked. Funny thing is, almost all Q's wrong come from individual rights. Had a messed up breakdown of:

Well, at least I know what I have to improve on. Worst part is, I already went through CMR on the individual rights issues (EP, DP material). Still have to review 1st Amendment stuff, but I can't believe how bad I do in this area.

I have a similar problem with Nature of Judicial Review. On the quizzes I've done on Multistate Edge so far, I've gotten seven questions in this area and have gone 0-fer. If I'd just answered them at random, there's an 87% chance I'd have gotten at least one right.

I'd say the handout outline is very good for the judicial review stuff. It always boils down to the same few rules, and once you learn to spot the few situations they test on that area, you are good as gold. Individual rights seems to encompass so much more and be so much more broad, so I guess I just need to read the CMR again and drill the points harder.

I just submitted the following question to the Barbri staff attorneys. It concerns question #58 of the 100 Question Exam in the PRE book. We'll see what they have to say.

This question contains elements of several different torts, one of which is false imprisonment, and the answer given is that the plaintiff was in fact falsely imprisoned. However, one of the elements of false imprisonment is confinement, and I don't see how it is met in this case.

In the fact pattern, the guard initially requested that the plaintiff accompany him to his office. We are told that despite protesting her innocence, she accompanied the guard. There is no indication that she was forced to do so.

Once they got to the office, the guard told the plaintiff not to leave or he would call the police. This is clearly a threat, and a threat can satisfy the confinement element. However, both the CMR and the Texas Torts lecture outline indicate that the threat must be of force, the lecture outline even going so far as to say that it must be a threat of "imminent physical force." Calling the police is not physical force. Without more, such as the plaintiff being locked in the room, it seems that she was always free to leave, which leaves D as the only viable answer choice (a remote shot at recovering for intentional infliction of emotional distress). What am I missing?

bgdddymtty wrote:I just submitted the following question to the Barbri staff attorneys. It concerns question #58 of the 100 Question Exam in the PRE book. We'll see what they have to say.

This question contains elements of several different torts, one of which is false imprisonment, and the answer given is that the plaintiff was in fact falsely imprisoned. However, one of the elements of false imprisonment is confinement, and I don't see how it is met in this case.

In the fact pattern, the guard initially requested that the plaintiff accompany him to his office. We are told that despite protesting her innocence, she accompanied the guard. There is no indication that she was forced to do so.

Once they got to the office, the guard told the plaintiff not to leave or he would call the police. This is clearly a threat, and a threat can satisfy the confinement element. However, both the CMR and the Texas Torts lecture outline indicate that the threat must be of force, the lecture outline even going so far as to say that it must be a threat of "imminent physical force." Calling the police is not physical force. Without more, such as the plaintiff being locked in the room, it seems that she was always free to leave, which leaves D as the only viable answer choice (a remote shot at recovering for intentional infliction of emotional distress). What am I missing?

Anyone care to chime in?

What was the wording of the question? Don't have my book. I remember other people talking about it here, with one person saying that they thought it was an invalid use of legal authority

5ky wrote:What was the wording of the question? Don't have my book. I remember other people talking about it here, with one person saying that they thought it was an invalid use of legal authority

A shopper was buying groceries and attempted to pay with a personal check. The grocery clerk thought that she recognized the shopper's name from a store memo listing known habitual bad check writers in the area. The clerk immediately called for the store's security guard over the store's loudspeaker. The guard quickly approached the shopper and requested that she step into his office. The shopper protested her innocence but accompanied the guard. He told her not to leave or he would call the police. She was then kept waiting in the guard's office for an hour until the guard finally returned with a copy of the memo showing that the shopper's name was not on the list. The shopper was terribly embarrassed by the entire incident because a number of her neighbors had seen the guard take her away.

If the shopper sues the grocery store for damages for her humiliation, she will:

A. Prevail, because she was falsely imprisoned.

B. Prevail, because the grocery store was negligent in identifying her.

C. Not prevail, because humiliation is not actionable.

D. Not prevail, unless the grocery store's conduct is judged to be extreme and outrageous.

5ky wrote:What was the wording of the question? Don't have my book. I remember other people talking about it here, with one person saying that they thought it was an invalid use of legal authority

A shopper was buying groceries and attempted to pay with a personal check. The grocery clerk thought that she recognized the shopper's name from a store memo listing known habitual bad check writers in the area. The clerk immediately called for the store's security guard over the store's loudspeaker. The guard quickly approached the shopper and requested that she step into his office. The shopper protested her innocence but accompanied the guard. He told her not to leave or he would call the police. She was then kept waiting in the guard's office for an hour until the guard finally returned with a copy of the memo showing that the shopper's name was not on the list. The shopper was terribly embarrassed by the entire incident because a number of her neighbors had seen the guard take her away.

If the shopper sues the grocery store for damages for her humiliation, she will:

A. Prevail, because she was falsely imprisoned.

B. Prevail, because the grocery store was negligent in identifying her.

C. Not prevail, because humiliation is not actionable.

D. Not prevail, unless the grocery store's conduct is judged to be extreme and outrageous.

Another thing that bothers me about this is it says she sues for her humiliation. Her humiliation is irrelevant in false imprisonment

5ky wrote:What was the wording of the question? Don't have my book. I remember other people talking about it here, with one person saying that they thought it was an invalid use of legal authority

A shopper was buying groceries and attempted to pay with a personal check. The grocery clerk thought that she recognized the shopper's name from a store memo listing known habitual bad check writers in the area. The clerk immediately called for the store's security guard over the store's loudspeaker. The guard quickly approached the shopper and requested that she step into his office. The shopper protested her innocence but accompanied the guard. He told her not to leave or he would call the police. She was then kept waiting in the guard's office for an hour until the guard finally returned with a copy of the memo showing that the shopper's name was not on the list. The shopper was terribly embarrassed by the entire incident because a number of her neighbors had seen the guard take her away.

If the shopper sues the grocery store for damages for her humiliation, she will:

A. Prevail, because she was falsely imprisoned.

B. Prevail, because the grocery store was negligent in identifying her.

C. Not prevail, because humiliation is not actionable.

D. Not prevail, unless the grocery store's conduct is judged to be extreme and outrageous.

Another thing that bothers me about this is it says she sues for her humiliation. Her humiliation is irrelevant in false imprisonment

I'm not so sure about that. Actual damages aren't required for false imprisonment, and I would imagine that the damage that most people suffer in a false imprisonment case is psychological in nature. I'm mostly running on intuition here, though, since I haven't seen a source for what kinds of damages are recoverable. Where are you getting your info?

5ky wrote:What was the wording of the question? Don't have my book. I remember other people talking about it here, with one person saying that they thought it was an invalid use of legal authority

A shopper was buying groceries and attempted to pay with a personal check. The grocery clerk thought that she recognized the shopper's name from a store memo listing known habitual bad check writers in the area. The clerk immediately called for the store's security guard over the store's loudspeaker. The guard quickly approached the shopper and requested that she step into his office. The shopper protested her innocence but accompanied the guard. He told her not to leave or he would call the police. She was then kept waiting in the guard's office for an hour until the guard finally returned with a copy of the memo showing that the shopper's name was not on the list. The shopper was terribly embarrassed by the entire incident because a number of her neighbors had seen the guard take her away.

If the shopper sues the grocery store for damages for her humiliation, she will:

A. Prevail, because she was falsely imprisoned.

B. Prevail, because the grocery store was negligent in identifying her.

C. Not prevail, because humiliation is not actionable.

D. Not prevail, unless the grocery store's conduct is judged to be extreme and outrageous.

Another thing that bothers me about this is it says she sues for her humiliation. Her humiliation is irrelevant in false imprisonment

I'm not so sure about that. Actual damages aren't required for false imprisonment, and I would imagine that the damage that most people suffer in a false imprisonment case is psychological in nature. I'm mostly running on intuition here, though, since I haven't seen a source for what kinds of damages are recoverable. Where are you getting your info?

The humiliation is from being accused of stealing, not for having to wait in a room. the damages are Not related to it. It's just a terribly written question.

There was another one about a man and a woman who have a kid. It asks what cause of action they have. The correct answer is something about violating the marriage rights, but it never says they're married in the hypo.

usuaggie wrote:The humiliation is from being accused of stealing, not for having to wait in a room. the damages are Not related to it. It's just a terribly written question.

You're absolutely right. I totally missed that.

There was another one about a man and a woman who have a kid. It asks what cause of action they have. The correct answer is something about violating the marriage rights, but it never says they're married in the hypo.

usuaggie wrote:The humiliation is from being accused of stealing, not for having to wait in a room. the damages are Not related to it. It's just a terribly written question.

You're absolutely right. I totally missed that.

There was another one about a man and a woman who have a kid. It asks what cause of action they have. The correct answer is something about violating the marriage rights, but it never says they're married in the hypo.

There was another one about a man and a woman who have a kid. It asks what cause of action they have. The correct answer is something about violating the marriage rights, but it never says they're married in the hypo.

I've ran into several questions like this as well. Both Kaplan's Q bank and Barbri have several questions where the right answer is based off of something that is not in the facts.

I did one last night that was a contracts question regarding reliance. A guy found out he had a daughter and she began visiting him and taking care of him while he was sick. He offered to pay for her college tuition as a reward. Facts said that she was "scraping by" when the promise was made, but said nothing as to whether she was planning to go to college before, or if she decided to go in general. Correct answer was that the contract was enforceable against the guys estate because she relied on it.

Tangerine Gleam wrote:Feeling demoralized by Real Property. I knew it was a weak spot for me, so I spent the last few days studying it fairly hard. 44% on Set 6 this evening.

And then 72% on Con Law Set 5. Relieved that I have strengths to (hopefully) balance out my weaknesses.

Way to go! Shake off the bad Property set. Sometimes you have a bad run (I got a 44% on Crim Set 5, for example), but no matter what your score is now, it's only the score at the end of July that matters. You have plenty of time (and questions) to be able to smooth out your rough spots.

Kobe824 wrote:So what's the goal for these PREs? I hit just over 70% right overall if you combine all my scores.

Doing some quick math from the info on Page iii of the MPQ1 book, Barbri expects you to average just over 60% on the MPQ1/StudySmart quizzes. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people do a bit better on the PRE quizzes than on the MPQ1 ones, so I think 70% is probably right about where you want to be there.

bgdddymtty wrote:I just submitted the following question to the Barbri staff attorneys. It concerns question #58 of the 100 Question Exam in the PRE book. We'll see what they have to say.

This question contains elements of several different torts, one of which is false imprisonment, and the answer given is that the plaintiff was in fact falsely imprisoned. However, one of the elements of false imprisonment is confinement, and I don't see how it is met in this case.

In the fact pattern, the guard initially requested that the plaintiff accompany him to his office. We are told that despite protesting her innocence, she accompanied the guard. There is no indication that she was forced to do so.

Once they got to the office, the guard told the plaintiff not to leave or he would call the police. This is clearly a threat, and a threat can satisfy the confinement element. However, both the CMR and the Texas Torts lecture outline indicate that the threat must be of force, the lecture outline even going so far as to say that it must be a threat of "imminent physical force." Calling the police is not physical force. Without more, such as the plaintiff being locked in the room, it seems that she was always free to leave, which leaves D as the only viable answer choice (a remote shot at recovering for intentional infliction of emotional distress). What am I missing?

Here is the response I received from Barbri:

Please reference the longer Torts outline in the Multistate book under "Invalid use of Legal Authority". Keep in mind that the final element of false imprisonment is by confinement OR restraint.

When a detention is made by a private citizen (without a warrant) for a criminal offense (when there is no privilege to do so) this constitutes false imprisonment. In other words, the detention is sufficient to satisfy the restraint element.

I'll have to check this out when I get home. I'm still not sure I'd consider it a "detention," given that the question seems to indicate that the plaintiff went with the security guard voluntarily (though reluctantly), as opposed to other questions where the guard has blocked the exit or whatever. I will say, though, that if the detention started when the security guard was called or when he asked the plaintiff to go with him, it would make sense to consider her humiliation for damages.

EDIT: I read the false imprisonment section of the Multistate outline, and I'm still not convinced. The whole thing still turns on whether the security guard did something to keep the plaintiff from leaving. He didn't. If she had chosen to leave, the only apparent consequence would have been that the guard would call the cops. He didn't "arrest" her in any meaningful sense of the word. I'm giving myself a point on that one, and Barbri can go pound sand.

Is the reason the answer was B (the ad was not an offer, and therefore the retailer's response was not an acceptance but an offer) because the ad didn't specify the exact quantity or expressly who could accept? It only stated $3000 per hundred and didn't talk about exactly who could accept in the trade journal ad (although it would be weird, at least in this context, to talk about exactly who could accept)?

Is the reason the answer was B (the ad was not an offer, and therefore the retailer's response was not an acceptance but an offer) because the ad didn't specify the exact quantity or expressly who could accept? It only stated $3000 per hundred and didn't talk about exactly who could accept in the trade journal ad (although it would be weird, at least in this context, to talk about exactly who could accept)?

That's right. Virtually any ad is going to be considered an invitation to make offers rather than an offer itself. One exception, as you mentioned, is the "first come, first served" exception. That comes from the Lefkowitz case, which you may have studied in 1L Contracts. Take a quick look at the case if you're not familiar, because any question about that exception will probably more or less mirror the facts of that case. The other exception is when a merchant sends an ad directly to another merchant with very specific terms. Basically, the ad has to make it sound like the offer was being made to that guy specifically as opposed to just everybody. If I run across a question that contains one of those provisions, I'll try to remember to post it here.

Here, the ad was in a trade journal, so it wasn't addressed to anyone in particular, and it didn't contain any sort of "first come, first served" language, so it wasn't an offer.

ace_of_spades wrote:21/36 on Property set #5. I feel so owned right now.

Not bad at all. BarBri made it clear that the Set 5 difficulty questions will only make up about 15% of the test. So if you can get over half right of the hardest 15% of the questions, you are in great shape. Its your performance on hose 3/4 sets that will be the best indicator of where you stand.